This template is a quick fix to remove the arcane "imagemap" formatting from the articles. It would have been better to avoid code duplication by moving the switch statement to just around the image filename - but that resulted in an error being displayed. -- Cid Highwind 15:10, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

I just replaced a previous version of this file with a new one (others in this set as well, see gallery below). The previous version is one of the oldest files we had, dating back to early 2004, and has been considered "uncited" for quite a while now. The new version is properly cited, but not a strictly "canon" image (I created it myself based on NASA imagery). I believe that the previous version was no different in that regard, but I'm not sure if we really want to continue using this. Feel free to bring it up for deletion or other forms of discussion if you think that's necessary. -- Cid Highwind 15:24, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Images deleted.

We might be able to get a shot a second before this Trekcore one, which shows the entire galaxy with the quadrants marked. - Archduk3 23:51, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Any single screenshot wouldn't work like this series of images does now, though (regarding highlighting of the different quadrants), unless we start editing canon imagery to suit our needs - which, in my opinion would be worse than having these images. So, replacing this series with a "static" image of the whole galaxy would still boil down to a deletion of this series, I guess. -- Cid Highwind 09:41, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Map

It seems pretty clear to me how you feel about still using these then, since we shouldn't use fan made images in articles, but apparently we "can't" adjust a canon image to replace these, even though we edit images all the time. If we can flip an image or crate a college to remove things from and/or expand an image, why can't we highlight a section of one? It's not like we won't mention the change on the file description page and still have the unaltered image linked there. Hypothetically, I could just cropped each quadrant out, rotate it to be square, and then create a custom gallery to hold all four of my edited images (all of which is fine according to the image policy), but that's simply not going to look anywhere near as good as a single image with a highlighted section (which isn't forbidden in the image policy). - Archduk3 10:57, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

I'm just glad nothing important hinges on your clairvoyance, because it doesn't seem to work very well. In case it hasn't been made explicit enough: I wouldn't mind deletion of these images. - what I would mind, however, is if these images are removed based on a non-canon/fanmade claim, only to be replaced with images that are non-canon/fanmade too (because the suggested highlighting is not in the original), and also of inferior quality (because the suggested image shows quadrants at an angle, making a more complex, polygonal image map necessary, and also shows the galaxy rotated in a way that no other canon map seems to share). Unless you can find a good orthogonal, non-blurry image showing the quadrants, we should probably just lose the image map idea and be done with it. We don't seem to be using image maps much, anyway, so they probably aren't that important to have around. -- Cid Highwind 15:07, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be working just fine Cid, since you've framed the argument in a way that we either have to keep your fan made images, or not have any. Since we don't allow fan made images, and since a minor alteration to a canon image is "fanmade" enough for you to object to using it, why bother with replacing these in the first place? You could have just skipped you having to object to your own work and went straight to deletion. That said, I still want an image map, and I intend to use the canon image, which should be fine enough for anyone using the canon encyclopedia. - Archduk3 22:15, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you got me, it's all a big conspiracy of me and The Man. I'm also responsible for fluoridating your water supply and the second gunman to shoot JFK... Really, stand back and look at the whole picture. There has been a "non-canon, fanmade" picture in this place for eight years now, tagged for being uncited for nearly one and a half years and no one, including you, gave a shit. Now that I've replaced images to at least clear up the latter problem so that we can have a proper discussion about the rest without that issue lurking in the shadows (this discussion, which I obviously started myself), enter Archduk3, screaming and shouting about those images being on par with the antichrist himself, failing to see how his own arguments are also valid against the replacement image he suggests. If I was a fan of conspiracy theories as well, I knew which explanation I'd bring up for this - but I'm not, so I'll just let the potential, uninvolved reader decide for himself. :)

Now that you've started a deletion discussion for these images, all is fine and well. Of course, we now use a stupid image, rotated the wrong way and with a useless image map on top of it - but that's still not the most stupid thing we have because of some consensus... I just hope you remember your reasoning before attempting to change that image into something "fanmade" again. -- Cid Highwind 10:58, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

"Stupid"? That's from the show! Feel free to figure out who made it and write them about how it doesn't live up to your standards and how you can make something even better with some scotch tape and a NASA image. I could spend some time here explaining in very small words so you would understand how fixing the lack of a citation by just making something you can cite to yourself solves nothing overall, but I know that's just a giant waste of time. I see the perceived problem in my suggestion, I just don't agree with it, but every thing you do must be above reproach. It must be nice to always be right, even when you're flat out fucking wrong. - Archduk3 11:21, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

So where the pictures changed to not include the different quadrants? I recall they were once showing on the picture with greek alphabets indicating eahc quadrant. Why was that removed? Also, when I click an image it doesnt take me to the image file but to another article. I havent kept up with the technical changes so my apologies if anyone feels like I should know because it was explained a million times before. Thanks. Distantlycharmed 23:37, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to the images here, you will see that there has been a lengthy discussion on their removal from the quadrant pages, both there and here. :) 31dot 23:44, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I am not going to pretend I have read everything said on the issue and I dont care for delving in legalism for 30,000 kbs over the term "fan generated image" and i most certainly will not attempt to once again argue from the, god forbid, "common sense" standpoint again, which I admit can be a futile way of reasoning around here, but for what it's worth, it just doesn't make to remove those designations. This is an encyclopedia and people will want to know where on that map the alpha quadrant actually is and where gamma etc. That is not self evident or common knowledge. It is strange to have a page "Alpha Quadrant" and then show a map of the entire galaxy not designating where the alpha quadrant is in the picture. Every image on every of the quadrant pages looks exactly the same without any distinction specifying the quadrants. To not designate that is antithetical to the whole purpose of this site as a reference/encyclopedia. I would certainly oppose such removal. Distantlycharmed 00:32, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Which was kinda sorta the point Cid and I attempted to make- though I won't beat that horse anymore on this page. Going to the next step- I think there is a canon image with the quadrants labeled somewhere- not sure where at this moment- though I seem to recall that it wasn't a perfect image and there was some disagreement as to whether it or possibly another image direct from canon should be altered by adding the quadrant names. It may also be possible to recreate an image based on a canon graphic, while adding labels- though I don't have the resources to do that. 31dot 00:41, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

If you think this graphic isn't the best we can have, then you agree with the point I was trying to make as well (not that anyone seemed to get that or care), but the quadrants are labeled, both in the image and on a mouseover, though neither is readily apparent, and the map labels aren't really readable at this size or quality. The long and short of the "discussion" about was Cid had a problem with modifying the canon image to make it more accessible, and I, along with a few others, had a problem with just making an image up. Since both are now not allowed by the image and canon policies, don't expect anything short of a good quality recreation of this map to replace this, unless someone has been sitting on a good version of the other maps used in the films and shows. - Archduk3 08:59, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, I misspoke above(and did not check at the time because I was rushing), the current image is the one I had in mind. It is clearly OK given the current wording of the policy- though the prior image DC refers to was not "just making an image up", which suggests some sort of randomly drawn image with random quadrant lines without regard for canon. As I said before, if those images were simply poor quality or inaccurate, they could have been deleted on those grounds alone without the need to change the policy. But, it's done- so I will live with it.

Regarding the image, could its orientation be rotated 90 degrees, so the Alpha Quadrant is at the bottom, as this and other maps had in canon?31dot 09:49, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with rotating this image, which I've already mentioned several times before, but it might be a better idea to try and find one of the images mentioned at the end of the IfD discussion. - Archduk3 14:57, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

I would also endorse using the quadrant map from the DS9 tech manual since it was seen (barely) in canon. 31dot 22:33, April 9, 2012 (UTC)